The New York Times filed a case against Microsoft and OpenAI, a ChatGPT developer. The newspaper claimed they illegally utilized its content to train artificial intelligence bots, jeopardizing its journalistic work.
The artificial intelligence (AI) industry has encountered another copyright violation case. This time, the New York Times (NYT), a legacy media outlet, has filed one against OpenAI, a ChatGPT developer.
On December 27, it filed the case, claiming that OpenAI illegally utilized its content to train its artificial intelligence chatbots, preventing the New York Times from executing its work.
New York Alleges Microsoft and OpenAI Models Contravened Intellectual Property
This case pulls from the Copyright Act and the US Constitution to safeguard NYT’s journalism. Besides, it mentions Microsoft’s Bing AI, asserting that it generates quotes from its content verbatim.
By offering Times’ information without authorization or consent, the respondents’ tool destroys and dents the petitioner’s relationship with readers. Additionally, it denies the petitioners of advertising, subscription, affiliate, and licensing income.
Other media firms have also raised concerns regarding artificial intelligence chatbots. In November, the News Media Alliance asserted that chatbots unlawfully tear copyright news. Additionally, it claimed that developers are using news publications to take income, users, and data.
On social media, Celicia Ziniti, an artificial intelligence and intellectual property (IP) attorney, said this is the ‘best case yet’ that claims how generative artificial intelligence is carrying out copyright violations. She mentioned an essential argument in the New York Times lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI.
OpenAI and Microsoft Disregarded New York Times Efforts to Harmonious Resolution
She reflected on the case indicating that ‘www.nytimes.com’ is the most highly represented proprietary source, trailing Wikipedia and US database hosting patent documents.
The case reveals that the New York Times contacted OpenAI and Microsoft in April this year, seeking to raise IP issues and ‘identify the potential for a harmonious resolution.’ However, the efforts were unsuccessful.
In follow-up tweets, Ziniti claimed she had been a paid subscriber to the New York Times and the New York Times Food archives for a decade. She also said that if ChatGPT provided her with the articles and complete recipes for free, she would not subscribe to the New York Times.
NYT Case to Deliver Turning Point for AI Versus Copyright
Ziniti said the case might be a ‘turning point’ for copyright and artificial intelligence. In the meantime, a thread concerning the case was created on the OpenAI developer forum, and the reactions were mixed. Several users expect the New York Times to be ‘unsuccessful’ in its assertions, while some claim it is fascinating to follow and ‘the Times should pursue the case.’
In September, the Author’s Guild, a United States-founded guild for writers, also initiated a class-action case against OpenAI, claiming ill use of copyrighted data in training artificial intelligence models.
OpenAI is not alone in being the target of such a case. In October, Universal Music Group accused Anthropic AI of copyright violation on ‘massive amounts of copyrighted works.’ This included the lyrics to several musical compositions under the publishers’ control or ownership.
A growing group of artists filed another lawsuit against Deviant, Midjourney, and Stability AI regarding the utilization of art to train its image-creating artificial intelligence models. Earlier, a United States judge dismissed this case because of a lack of proof.
Later, it was expanded and revised using additional detailed accusations. OpenAI has revealed its intentions to cover the legal expenses of business-level ChatGPT users involved in a legal war related to copyright violation.
SureTradeGroup.com is not responsible for the content, accuracy, quality, advertising, products or any other content posted on the site. Some of the content on this site is paid content that is not written or posted by our writers or editors and the opinions expressed do not reflect the opinions of this website. Any disagreement you may have with brands or companies mentioned in articles will need to be taken care of directly with those specific brands and companies. The responsibility of anyone who may click links in our articles and ultimately sign up for that product or service is their own. Forex, Stocks, Cryptocurrencies, NFTs and Dogital Tokens are all a high-risk asset, investing in them can lead to losses. Readers should do their own research before taking any action.